Delhi District Court
Sh Somnath Setia @ Som Lal Setia vs Sh Ravi Setia Alias Ravi Kant on 10 February, 2016
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANATAN PRASAD,
CIVIL JUDGE04(W), TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI.
CS No.131/2013
Sh Somnath Setia @ Som Lal Setia,
S/o Late Sh. Mohri Lal Setia,
R/o K30, NDSE, Part II,
New Delhi 49. ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh Ravi Setia alias Ravi Kant, S/o Sh Parmanand Setia, R/o H No.33, Block A, Public Park, Sriganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
2. Sh Parmanand Setia, S/o Late Sh Mohri Lal Setia, R/o H No.33, Block A, Public Park, Sriganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
3. Sh Madan Lal, S/o Sh Ram Lal, C/o Ravi Setia, R/o H No.33, Block A, Public Park, Sriganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
-: 2 :-
4. Sh Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh Chaman Lal, C/o Sh. Ravi Setia, R/o H No.33, Block A, Public Park, Sriganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
5. Delhi Development Authority, (Service to be effected through Vice Chairman), Vikas Sadan, INA Market, New Delhi .
6. Sh Surinder Kumar, S/o Sh Banwari Lal, R/o H. No.533, Urban Estate, Sector 4, Gurgaon, Haryana. ..... Defendants SUIT FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENTS FORGED/MANUFACTURED BY THE DEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 4.
Date of Institution : 13.02.1995 Date of reserving judgment : 10.02.2016 Date of Decision : 10.02.2016 Present: Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff .
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.5.
-: 3 :- Judgment:
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the following reliefs :
(i) To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring as the sole owner/perpetual sublessee in respect of plot No.13, Block A, Geetanjali Encalve, New Delhi.
(ii) To pass a decree of prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 to 4 restraining all the defendants from representing themselves either singly or jointly as the owner of the aforesaid plot, restraining them from alienating or selling or transferring the said plot from creating any burden or lien, in any manner, whatsoever in favour of any person who or she/he may be.
(iii) To direct the defendants no.1 to 4 to produce all the documents which they have managed or forged in respect of the above said plot and after those are produced in the court, those be destroyed in presence of the court .
-: 4 :-
2. Plaintiff's version:
Plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Delhi and he is advocate by profession. The plaintiff is residing in Delhi since the year 1956 and the defendant no.2 is the real brother of the plaintiff while the defendant no.1 is the son of the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.3 and 4 are the friends of defendant no.1 and
2. Further the forefather of the plaintiff were permanent residents of Punjab i.e. of the towns of Abohor and Fazilka, District Ferozpur, Punjab and it was a rich family trading as commission agents and owning the huge agricultural land and after the death of great grandfather of the plaintiff, the property which was ancestral property was inherited by the father of the plaintiff.
Further, plaintiff stated that the plaintiff and defendant no.2 and 3 are not on good terms with each other for the 25 years and the defendant no.1 in conspiracy with his father namely, the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.3 and 4 forged a power of attorney purported to be executed by the plaintiff by forging his signatures to and on that basis, he appeared in a Civil Court at Rampura Phul,
-: 5 :-
Punjab and obtained a decree against the plaintiff.
Further, the plaintiff stated that the defendant no.2 is a tenant under the plaintiff in his property at Shri Ganganangar, Rajasthan and a litigation is already going on between them and in that litigation also, both the defendants no.1 and 2 have already forged certain documents. Further, the plaintiff owns a valuable plot of land measuring 900 sq yards in Geetanjali Enclave (South Delhi, New Delhi), being plot no.13, Block A, alloted to him by the Lok Sewak Cooperative House Building Society Pvt. Ltd by virtue of Sublease deed dated 25 th of February, 1971, executed by the President of Indian, Lok Sewak Co operative House Building Society and the plaintiff. The said plot of land is still unconstructed and the construction is yet to start upon it. The said plot of land is in exclusive physical possession of the plaintiff of which he is owner/perpetual sublessee and the defendant no.5 being the paramount lessor has been impleaded as one of the defendant and no relief has been claimed against it.
Further, the plaintiff stated that the apprehensions of the plaintiff are well founded and the
-: 6 :-
plaintiff may be deprived of his property at any time by the defendant No.1 to 4 unless and until all of them are restrained by this Hon'ble Court by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from doing it. The plaintiff is exclusive and sole owner of the plot and no other person whosoever he or she may be has any right, interest or title therein much less the defendant no. 1 to 4.
Further, the plaintiff stated that the defendants have illegally and unlawfully fabricated a family settlement dated 05.11.1993 which is neither signed by the defendant nor such family settlement was arrived at nor the defendants no. 1 and 6 have any right qua the suit property and the said family settlement and the decree obtained by them dated 12.12.1996 is wholly void and not binding upon the plaintiff stood conveyed to defendant no.1 and 6 by the said family settlement/partition decree. The said family settlement deed and decree dated 12.12.1996 is liable to be declared as void and nullity in the eyes of law.
3. Defendant no.5 has denied all the claims of the plaintiff and has taken the following stands:
-: 7 :-
(i) That no notice U/sec 53 B of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 has been served upon the defendant no.5/DDA, by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed.
(ii) That the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.
(iii) That the plaintiff wants much more than a mere relief of injunction, therefore the suit is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed.
(iv) That the plot no. A13, measuring 900 Sq. Yds., in Lok Sewak Cooperative House Building Society Ltd was subleased in the name of Sh. Somnath Setia on 25th February, 1971, and the plot is lying vacant and no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff against the defendant no.5 as there is no other sublessee in respect of the said plot, except the plaintiff, in the records of defendant no.5/DDA.
-: 8 :-
4. However, none has appeared on behalf of the defendant no.1 to 4 and 6 nor any WS has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 to 4 and 6. Therefore, vide order dated 09.08.1999, the defendant no.1 to 4 and vide order dated 10.10.2002 the defendant no.6 were proceeded with Exparte and these orders have therefore, attained finality in due course.
5. By way of replication, the plaintiff has denied all the claims of the defendant no.5 stating that the defendant no.5 is only the proforma defendant and no relief has been claimed against it; hence, no notice was required to be served U/sec 53B of the DDA Act.
6. In the witness box, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, and tendered his evidenciary affidavit dated 18.08.2012, in evidence and has proved the affidavit itself, as Ex PW1/A, and his signatures at point "A" and "B", this PW1 has relied upon the following documents :
(i) The copy of the sublease deed dated 25.02.1971 is Ex PW1/1 (OSR),
-: 9 :-
(ii) The copy of letter calling upon the plaintiff to attend the hearing for assessment of house tax is Ex PW 1/2 (OSR),
(iii) The letter dated 09.10.1994 is Ex PW1/3,
(iv) The copy of the receipt dated 25.03.1993 is ex PW 1/4 (OSR),
(v) The public notice by way of advertisement dated 11.10.1994 is Ex PW1/5.
7. It appears that the suit was finally adjudicated and vide order dated 21.01.2013, of my Ld Predecessor, the same was dismissed, mainly, on the ground of the plaintiff failing to show cause of action in his favour and therefore, no right to sue, could have been said to have accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, however, vide order dated 12.03.2013, from the Ld. Appellate court, the said order was set aside and matter was remanded to this court for a fresh decision by pronouncing judgment on all issues and allowing the plaintiff to prove the additional documents as detailed in the application U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC, and thereupon the evidenciary affidavit dated 10.07.2013, of PW1, again, Sh Somnath Setia, was tendered in evidence on 12.07.2013, and this PW was cross
-: 10 :-
examined and discharged, alongwith another witness, i.e. PW2, Sh. Damodar, Assistant in the office of CoOperative Society, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, and this PW Sh Damodar has produced letters dated 27.04.2001, written by DDA and letter dated 15.06.2001, again written by DDA and also letter dated 05.03.1998, relating to the property in question and the witness was discharged, after providing an opportunity for cross examination, which was 'nil' and it appears that the copies of these three letters were already on record and they were already exhibited as Ex PW1/11 and Ex PW1/12 and also Ex PW1/9, respectively and as such this witness is only a witness of record .
In his additional evidence, brought on record, the plaintiff, PW1 has proved the affidavit itself, as Ex PW1/B and his signatures, thereon at point 'A' and 'B' and further, relied upon the documents exhibited as Ex PW1/6 to Ex PW1/12 and Ex PW1/6 is the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 01.10.1993, passed by the court of Ld. SubJudge, Rampura Phul, Punjab, whereas certified copy of judgment dated 25.10.2006 , passed by the court of Civil Judge, Fazilka, Punjab is Ex PW1/7 and certified copy of decree dated 12.12.1996, passed by the court of
-: 11 :-
Civil Judge, Pilibhanga, Rajasthan alongwith Family Settlement and Power of Attorney is Ex PW1/8. Ex PW 1/10, (colly), are certified copies of FIR/complaints of the plaintiff and in his cross examination, done on 12.07.2013, by the defendant no.5/DDA, the PW1 has stated that this defendant was proforma party in the present case and no relief was claimed against it. PW1 has further accepted that in his affidavit, i.e. Ex PW1/B the word "defendants" meant only the defendant no. 1 to 4 and 6 and not the defendant no.5/DDA, and he has also accepted that mutation was not done by the DDA till date, on account of the dispute raised by defendant no. 1 to 4 and 6 and he has denied a suggestion as wrong, that he was deposing falsely.
It appears that the PW1 was not cross examined at all, even by the defendant no.5/DDA, upon his earlier examination and PE in the matter, earlier, was closed on 04.12.2012, on the statement of the plaintiff, on which date even the defendant no.5/DDA was also proceeded with exparte, however, this defendant again, appeared, in the court on 12.07.2013 and has joined the present proceedings.
-: 12 :-
8. I have heard detailed , exparte final arguments, by the ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh Sanjay Dua, who has also filed written submissions in the court and also an authority in the case of Chanderkant Govind Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Amravati and Anr., of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, DOD 16.06.1966, and even counsel for the defendant no.5/DDA, Sh K D Sharma has also made submissions in the matter. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has made a statement, on 06.02.2016, thereby, dropping the relief, claimed in prayer clause c), of the plaint and he also submitted that the plaintiff was ready to furnish court fees on advolerum basis, on the value of Perpetual SubLease deed, if found leviable under the law, and in view of above, it appears that issue no.3, as framed in the case, to the effect, "as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP", is wiped out and therefore, no specific finding needs be given, on this issue and in this scenario of the case I proceed to decide the matter and impart my categorical findings, to the issues, framed in the case as under :
-: 13 :- ISSUE No.1: This is an issue, to the effect, as to
whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for, and burden of proof of this issue has been placed on the plaintiff, whose evidence , has gone on record, uncontroverted and unchallenged and vide Ex PW1/1, which is the copy of perpetual sublease dated 25.02.1971, whereas, Ex PW1/2 is the copy of letter, issued to the plaintiff U/s 124(5), of MCD Act, requiring his presence during the hearing of the objection, regarding tax determination/assessment, again, Ex PW1/3 is the letter dated 09.10.1994, written by the plaintiff to DDA, regarding forged documents, submitted in the file of DDA.
Ex PW1/4 is the copy of receipt, in respect of payment of Ground Rent, upto 1993, made by the plaintiff, to the Lok Sewak Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Ex PW 1/5 is the Newspaper, containing public notice, dated 11.10.1994. Ex PW 1/6, to Ex PW1/12, are the additional documentary evidence, brought on record, by the plaintiff on remand of the case from the Ld. Appellate Court, and Ex PW1/6 is the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 01.10.1993, of the court of Sh S K Goel, PCS, Sub Judge Ist Class, Phul, and Ex PW1/7 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006, thereby
-: 14 :-
declaring and setting aside, the earlier order dated 01.10.1993, as being result of fraud and therefore, also restraining the defendant no.1, therein, i.e. Sh Ravi Setia, from alienating the suit property to anybody else and also from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs, therein, and in this judgment, the present plaintiff is, arrayed as defendant no.2. Ex PW1/8 is the copy of decree dated 12.12.1996, wherein family settlement dated 05.11.1993, has been made a part thereof and copy of GPA dated 23.07.1993, alongwith this 'settlement' have been proved as Ex PW1/8, collectively. Ex PW1/9 is the copy of the request letter dated 05.03.1998, written by defendant no.1 and 6 to the DDA, seeking mutation of the property under sub lease, in their names. Ex PW1/10 have been proved, collectively and they are copies of FIRs also Complaint made by the plaintiff, in the matter, to show the alleged malafide intent of defendants no 1 to 4 and 6. Copies of the Letters of DDA dated 27.04.2001 and 15.06.2001 are Ex PW1/11 and Ex PW1/12, calling upon the defendant no. 1 and 6 to submit the documents for mutation and also to the present plaintiff, alongwith these two defendants to attend the office of the defendant no.5/DDA, regarding mutation of the property in question,
-: 15 :-
respectively, and on the strength of these uncontroverted, documentary evidence, brought in, on record the plaintiff appears to have successfully, discharged this burden in his favour and there is now, a clearcut cause of action, existing in favour of the plaintiff, inasmuch as the existence of this multifarious and multipartite litigation between the plaintiff, on the one hand and the defendants, on the other hand, except the defendant no.5, does go to show the process of a cloud being cast on the title of the plaintiff, over the suit property, owned by him as a perpetual sublessee, further, the Ex PW1/11 does show the existence of a dispute and rival claims being made, in the matter, by the defendant no.1 and 6, over the suit property, and Ex PW1/12, certainly shows the office of defendant no.5/DDA moving on the application dated 05.03.1998, of the defendant no.1 and 6 and Ex PW1/11 and Ex PW1/12, therefore, seriously, bring in dispute the title of the plaintiff over the suit property and as such, the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiff, appears to be reliable and truthful, in the matter and plaintiff appears to be a trustworthy witness, in the matter and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence, in the matter and the same can be acted upon,
-: 16 :-
which establishes the case of the plaintiff for the entitlement to the decree of declaration as prayed for and the plaintiff in the present suit, appears to have established his own right and title as perpetual sublessee of the property in question and the defendants no 1 and 6 are the persons appearing, interested in denying the legal character as owner of the plaintiff, to the property in question and therefore, the plaintiff can maintain the present suit and his right as perpetual sublessee, of the property in question is established and has even been admitted by the defendant no.5/DDA, that he is the only sublessee in respect of the suit property and as such the plaintiff has, now, established his case for grant of declaratory relief, as claimed and accordingly this issue is decided infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4 and 6 and it is, hereby held that the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for and to the effect that he is the sole owner/perpetual sublessee in respect of plot no.13, BlockA, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi.
ISSUE NO.2: This is an issue, to the effect, as to whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent
-: 17 :-
injunction as prayed for ? And burden of proof of this issue has, again been placed on the plaintiff and the relief covered under this issue is, of 'Restraint', against the defendants no. 1 to 4, from representing themselves either singly, (wrongly typed as signly) or jointly as the owner of the aforesaid plot no.13, BlockA, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi and also restraining them from alienating or selling or transferring the said plot from creating any burden or lien, in any manner, whatsoever in favour of any person, who or she/he may be; and it is to be noted that another matter, titled as Sh Somnath Setia Vs. Ravi Setia and Ors., Civil Suit No.590/2014, is also pending in this court and the present defendants no.1, 3 and 6 are also arrayed as defendants in that suit, besides DDA/ defendant no.4 and there is application pending, U/o 22 Rule 10, R/w Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, from the applicants, who claimed to be the purchaser/buyer/transferee of the property under both the suit. There is another suit pending, bearing No.2242/2010, CS(OS), wherein the present defendant no.1 and 6 have been arrayed as defendant no. 1 and 2 the claimant purchaser/buyers/transferee/(s), as above, have been arrayed as defendant no. 3 and 4 and it is also on record that an interim order was made operative, in favour of the
-: 18 :-
present plaintiff in the suit no. 590/2014, since 29.07.2002, thereby directing the defendants, in that suit to maintain statusquo and the defendant no.4/DDA was directed not to mutate property in name of any person till disposal of the suit, which is still pending in this court and is fixed for 20.02.2016, thus, therefore, there is a chequered history of litigation, with respect to the property involved in the matter. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has, forcefully, contented that the material/evidence brought on record, sufficiently show that the defendant no. 1 to 4 are trying to swindle the property in question, illegitimately, from the plaintiff and their act of attempting to get it mutated in favour of defendant Ravi Setia and also Sh. Surender Kumar and subsequent execution of sham documents of purported sale, in favour of the so called manipulated buyers/purchasers/transferee/(s), amply prove cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and the fact of collusive decrees obtained by the defendants in the courts of Punjab and Rajasthan and further, certain purported transfer made, under the sham documents and contacting the property agent for sale of the said property, truly expresses the imminent apprehensions of the plaintiff, which is genuine and reasonable and I find considerable force in
-: 19 :-
this submission, especially, when the defendant no. 1 to 4 and 6 have not bothered to appear before this court, in the case and they have not even filed the written statement in the matter and the clear and cogent testimony of the plaintiff, in this regard has gone unchallenged and the same is also supported by the documentary evidence and Ex PW1/5 also shows some apprehension in his mind and therefore, the plaintiff appears to have duly, discharged the burden of proving this issue, in his favour and appears to be entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for and even the grant of injunction appears to be necessary so as to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings and accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for relief of 'Restraint' order against the defendants no. 1 to 4 in the matter, as per his prayer and this issue is decided accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 4.
ISSUE No. 3: This is an issue, to the effect, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for and the same appears to have been given up by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 06.02.2016, as per his statement, as the relief no.c), in the plaint, appears to
-: 20 :-
have been covered under the issue no.3 and in view of withdrawal of this relief, this issue becomes infructuous and therefore, no specific finding needs be given on this issue, accordingly, the issue is being decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO.4 : This is an issue, to the effect, as to whether the suit is bad against the defendant DDA for want of notice u/s 53B, of the DDA Act, 1957 and burden of proof of this issue has been placed on the defendant no.5/DDA, which is a non contesting defendant in the case and Sh. K D Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.5 has fairly, conceded that in view of the fact that the present plaintiff has not claimed any relief, in the plaint, against this defendant, therefore, the mandatory character of serving notice under the section may become directory, on the other hand, Sh Sanjay Dua, Ld. Counsel, for the plaintiff has submitted an authority of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, at Nagpur, (supra), and the ratio of the authority goes to lay down that when no relief is claimed against a public officer /office, then there is no need of serving statutory notice, such as U/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and on an analogy, it follows that notice becomes
-: 21 :-
mandatory, when the relief would be asked against the Public Body/Public Officer, in this case being the defendant no.5/DDA and its character becomes directory, when no relief is being claimed against such Public Body/Public Officer and the defendant no.5/DDA is only a proforma party in the case and as such the defendant no.5 appears to have failed, in discharging this burden in its favour and therefore, the issue has to be decided against the defendant no.5/DDA and in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly it is hereby, held that the present suit is not bad against defendant no.5/DDA, which has been made only a proforma party in the matter.
ISSUE No.5: This is an issue, to the effect, as to whether the suit has not been property valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and burden of proof of this issue, again, appears to have been placed on the defendant no.5/DDA, only, as other defendants have not filed their written statement/(s), in the matter and they have been ex parte allalong and even this defendant no.5/DDA has not led in any evidence, on record , in support of this issue and Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has, vehemently, contended that when the defendant no.5/DDA has not discharged this
-: 22 :-
burden, in its favour, by leading any evidence on record, then the issue is ought to be decided, in favour of the plaintiff. Sh K D Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.5/DDA, on the other hand, has made a submission that the relief, regarding declaration can be valued, on advolerum basis and in accordance with the value, specified under the sub lease for Rs.8887/, atleast and thereupon, ld counsel for the plaintiff made a submission in the court that the plaintiff was prepared to value the suit on this basis and the suit should not be dismissed on mere technicalities, however, this submission was made, when Sh Sharma had already left the court after completion of proceedings at the first call, and after completing his arguments in the matter and the submission was made by ld counsel for plaintiff at later stage, during the day on 06.02.2016.
I have carefully, considered the matter and it appears that a duty has been cast even on the court concerned, to examine such matter very carefully, when the interest of Revenue, is involved and the present issue is resolved, in view of a decision of Hon'ble Mr Justice S N Sapra, in suit No.2645/86, DOD 29.08.1990, in case of Sh.
-: 23 :-
S C Malik Vs. Surender Nath Puri; 1991.
RLR(Note)85, holding that if the reliefs for declarations and injunctions, claimed, are wholly independent of each other then suit is not governed by S.7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and in the present case also the relief of declaration claimed, by the plaintiff in the plaint and of permanent/prohibitory injunction claimed against the defendants no 1 to 4 , also seem independent of each other and can be claimed independently, against different set/(s) of defendant/ defendants, and even in different terms, also materially, varying as per moulding. However, when the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, and relief of declaration is sought regarding his ownership rights then the relief of injunction becomes a consequential relief, in such a particular instance, accordingly section 7 (iv)(c) , of the Act, as above, has no application and it has been so held in Mahant Purshottam Das Vs. Harnarain AIR 1978. Delhi 114 - 1978. Raj L.R. 153; And it has also been held in Shiela Devi Vs. Kishan Lal Kalra ILR (1974)2 Delhi (FB) 491 Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. Vs Vimal Pannalal AIR 1988 SC 1636 , that paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the
-: 24 :-
clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes on the reliefs he seeks, subject, however, to any rules made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and the court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation, it, therefore, follows that unless certain other method of valuation has been specified by the High Court for certain specific class of suits, such as present one, for the purposes of Court fees Act or of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, or otherwise, the valuation set by the plaintiff prevails, for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, if not wholly, arbitrary and palpably/manifestly wrong and therefore, it should have some reasonable basis with the subject matter and relief claimed and in the present case the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction on 'Prescribed Basis' and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary when the plaintiff claims, himself, to be in the exclusive physical possession of the property in question and as such the issue has to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and therefore, I decide it accordingly, holding that the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.
-: 25 :-
RELIEF : In view of my findings on the issues no. 1 and 2, as above the plaintiff is found entitled to decree of declaration as well as permanent injunction and I therefore, hereby pass a decree of declaration, declaring thereby the plaintiff as the sole owner/perpetual sublessee in respect of plot No.13, Block A, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi, alongwith a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 4, restraining all the defendants from representing themselves either singly or jointly as the owner of the aforesaid plot, also restraining them from alienating or selling or transferring the said plot from creating any burden or lien, in any manner, whatsoever in favour of any person who or she/he may be, with no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court Today, this 10th February, 2016.
(Sanatan Prasad), Civil Judge04 (West), THC, Delhi.
-: 26 :-
-: 27 :-